I think we're getting a little off track insofar as the laws of thermodynamics debate is going. Seems to me the real key point of the video is the use of hydrogen in place of other fuels, ...

The 'clever' trick would be to extract hydrogen gas from oil and natural gas at source and pump the CO2 liberated back down the source oil/gas well.

The geological strata there has kept the oil confined for millennia. If the oil/gas company are not too sloppy about their well heads, then the stuff should stay confined for a few millennia yet. The heat and pressure down there might even let the CO2 form carbonaceous rocks.

And then again, there could well be the sort of disaster as has happened with the mud volcano in Indonesia...

For whatever is proposed, the complete fuel cycle must be considered.
Regards, Martin

The problem seems to be cost, not with your scenario, but with the whole industry. How many companies do you see burning natural gas off everywhere? ALL OF THEM DO IT! Why do they do it you ask, because it is not cost effective to capture the gas and then sell it. WHEN that becomes cost effective it is time to start thinking about being worried for your oil company stocks!

---

Off topic:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=at0nAAAAEBAJ&dq=5590031

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

But:

- Water powered cars would have water for exhaust.
- We wouldn't have to buy oil from the middle east.
- We wouldn't have to worry about oil spills.
- We could use salt water to power our vehicles.
- Our children would be able to breath better.
- The trees and plants that supply our oxygen would be better off.

What are your thoughts on that?


Respectfully,

Mr. Gray

I think a water powered thermal engine is not possible for thermodynamic reasons. Water does not burn and to separate it into hydrogen and oxygen you have to provide electricity, that is 5 kWh per metric cube of hydrogen in standard temperature and pressure conditions. This is the gauntlet for all fuel cell vehicles. According to "Nature" magazine, to power all USA cars with hydrogen obtained using wind power you would need to build 100 million wind towers.
Tullio

The rate that we burn oil/petrol/derivatives in cars/trucks/boats/airplanes...
Yes this a concern for us all. There are new oil strikes around the world which will keep this industry going for quite some time yet, the middleeast will be sucked dry in about 10-15 years then they have nothing left. The new wells will have to come online after this to supply the demand.....

The other option being investigated is that they will not come online to supply "everybody"... this raises some issues.


The issue of splitting hydrogen out from water has been backlined for a longtime... the conventional method of electrolysis is not practicle as it consumes more power than it liberates in the form of useable hydrogen...
wind power is more suited to topping up the national grid or a local grid, sea/wave power is much the same.

Note I said conventional. A newer method has been able to deliver abundant hydrogen with much less input, it has potential to enable hydrogen generation as the vehicle is travelling.

have water will travel...

A couple years ago (don't ask me when it was), I watched an interview on TV. A technician was asked about his opinion to the so-called "1 liter car" (1 liter fuel per 100km). This man laughed out loud and said that there would have been inventions and technologies existing since the 80's which were enabling a car to need less than an ounce of fuel per 100km without any loss of speed or horse-power and without putting the trunk full of batteries, but were only locked away by request of some big companies.

I only can imagine these technologies could have something to do with hybrid drives: a small petrol or Diesel engine running a generator, this giving power to electric motors in the wheels for example.

I think such a combination would work with each kind of engine, even with a water engine.

---

Account frozen...

But:

- Water powered cars would have water for exhaust.
- We wouldn't have to buy oil from the middle east.
- We wouldn't have to worry about oil spills.
- We could use salt water to power our vehicles.
- Our children would be able to breath better.
- The trees and plants that supply our oxygen would be better off.

What are your thoughts on that?


Respectfully,

Mr. Gray

I think a water powered thermal engine is not possible for thermodynamic reasons. Water does not burn and to separate it into hydrogen and oxygen you have to provide electricity, that is 5 kWh per metric cube of hydrogen in standard temperature and pressure conditions. This is the gauntlet for all fuel cell vehicles. According to "Nature" magazine, to power all USA cars with hydrogen obtained using wind power you would need to build 100 million wind towers.
Tullio

The rate that we burn oil/petrol/derivatives in cars/trucks/boats/airplanes...
Yes this a concern for us all. There are new oil strikes around the world which will keep this industry going for quite some time yet, the middleeast will be sucked dry in about 10-15 years then they have nothing left. The new wells will have to come online after this to supply the demand.....

The other option being investigated is that they will not come online to supply "everybody"... this raises some issues.


The issue of splitting hydrogen out from water has been backlined for a longtime... the conventional method of electrolysis is not practicle as it consumes more power than it liberates in the form of useable hydrogen...
wind power is more suited to topping up the national grid or a local grid, sea/wave power is much the same.

Note I said conventional. A newer method has been able to deliver abundant hydrogen with much less input, it has potential to enable hydrogen generation as the vehicle is travelling.

have water will travel...

Sigh…

Ok, time for a back of the envelope calculation.

At STP (a temperature of 0C @ a pressure of 100 kPa – IUPAC-Current), 1 cubic meter of hydrogen gas is about 44 moles of hydrogen gas..

PV=nRT

n=PV/RT

= (100kPa)(1 m^3) / (8.314472 m3 • Pa • K-1 • mol-1)(273.15K)
= (100000 mol)/(2271.098)
= 44.03 mol.

2H2O -> 2H2 + O2, ΔG = 118 kcal

So, 44 moles of H2 gas needs 22 * 118 kcal = 2596 kcal of energy to separate it from water, at 100% efficiency (which you will NEVER get).

Also note that the reverse operation (combining the H2 with O2 to form water again) only produces 2596 kcal of energy, at 100% efficiency (which, again, you will NEVER get).

Converting kilocalories to kilowatt hours, 2596 kcal = about 3.017 kilowatt hours.


Ok, the relative efficiency of electrolysis is such that I find the 5 kilowatt hour figure cited earlier to be believable. That means about 2 kilowatt hours are wasted due to inefficiency. There are newer methods for cracking water into hydrogen and oxygen gas that are more efficient, such as high-pressure steam cracking in nuclear plants. But, no matter how efficient you can make it, it will always take at least 3.017 kilowatt hours of energy to do it. That is the absolute BEST it can get (100% efficiency) in theory. In practice it will take more. Let’s assume that some new method that is able to be installed in an automobile takes only 4 kilowatt hours to crack the cubic meter (@STP) of hydrogen gas.

But anyway, now that you have the Hydrogen gas, how will you use it? One way is to use it as a fuel in some sort of internal combustion engine. Typical high-efficiency production internal combustion engines used in automobiles have efficiencies of about 20%. That means you must put 5 times as much energy in (as the fuel) as you get usable energy out. The highest efficiency experimental internal combustion engine suitable for automobiles has an efficiency of 42%. Let’s assume that there is a breakthrough, and this engine runs at 50% efficiency. That would mean that you get half the energy out from the engine as the energy input supplied (the fuel).
So, let’s use 4 kilowatt hours of electricity to produce our 1 cubic meter of hydrogen gas using our super efficient new process. Then let’s burn it in our uber-efficient internal combustion engine, receiving 1.5 kilowatt hours of mechanical energy to move the vehicle. Not very efficient, is it?

1.5/4= 37.5 % efficient.

What about the fuel cell, you ask? Well, the output of fuel cells is electricity. Why go to all the trouble of messing with the hydrogen. You started with electricity in the first place.

Modern, high-efficiency electric motors are quite capable of about 95% efficiency. Using the same 4 kilowatt hours you used with the hydrogen mess, using these electric motors, one would get 3.8 kilowatt hours of mechanical energy out to move the vehicle. WELL over twice as much energy output as you got with the hydrogen mess.

The ONLY time it makes sense to use hydrogen to power a vehicle is if the hydrogen is cracked out of water somewhere else, and is just pumped into a tank in the vehicle. You will NEVER just be able to pour water into a tank in your vehicle and go with no other energy inputs. The energy (electricity) source in your vehicle required to crack the water into hydrogen and oxygen gas would be MUCH better off used to directly power the vehicle using electric motors.

Some people get confused about this. They remember that in their gasoline powered automobiles, the energy required to keep the battery charged (and power all the electrical features of their automobile) is available from a relatively small alternator attached to and powered by the engine. Well, this works because one does not have to use the electricity to synthesize the gasoline out of CO2 and H2O. The engine is powered by combusting the gasoline (already ‘synthesized’ by nature and the oil company refineries, and just pumped into a holding tank in your automobile) and has plenty of mechanical energy available to keep the minor needs of the automobile for electrical power met.

This is really just fairly simple physics and chemistry. Its not even rocket science (which is, itself, fairly simple physics, as physics goes). Anyone that tries to convince you that they have some vehicle that runs on nothing but water (no other energy inputs) is just blowing smoke up your backside and trying to sell you snake oil.

But:

- Water powered cars would have water for exhaust.
- We wouldn't have to buy oil from the middle east.
- We wouldn't have to worry about oil spills.
- We could use salt water to power our vehicles.
- Our children would be able to breath better.
- The trees and plants that supply our oxygen would be better off.

What are your thoughts on that?


Respectfully,

Mr. Gray

I think a water powered thermal engine is not possible for thermodynamic reasons. Water does not burn and to separate it into hydrogen and oxygen you have to provide electricity, that is 5 kWh per metric cube of hydrogen in standard temperature and pressure conditions. This is the gauntlet for all fuel cell vehicles. According to "Nature" magazine, to power all USA cars with hydrogen obtained using wind power you would need to build 100 million wind towers.
Tullio

The rate that we burn oil/petrol/derivatives in cars/trucks/boats/airplanes...
Yes this a concern for us all. There are new oil strikes around the world which will keep this industry going for quite some time yet, the middleeast will be sucked dry in about 10-15 years then they have nothing left. The new wells will have to come online after this to supply the demand.....

The other option being investigated is that they will not come online to supply "everybody"... this raises some issues.


The issue of splitting hydrogen out from water has been backlined for a longtime... the conventional method of electrolysis is not practicle as it consumes more power than it liberates in the form of useable hydrogen...
wind power is more suited to topping up the national grid or a local grid, sea/wave power is much the same.

Note I said conventional. A newer method has been able to deliver abundant hydrogen with much less input, it has potential to enable hydrogen generation as the vehicle is travelling.

have water will travel...

Sigh…

Ok, time for a back of the envelope calculation.

At STP (a temperature of 0C @ a pressure of 100 kPa – IUPAC-Current), 1 cubic meter of hydrogen gas is about 44 moles of hydrogen gas..

PV=nRT

n=PV/RT

= (100kPa)(1 m^3) / (8.314472 m3 • Pa • K-1 • mol-1)(273.15K)
= (100000 mol)/(2271.098)
= 44.03 mol.

2H2O -> 2H2 + O2, ΔG = 118 kcal

So, 44 moles of H2 gas needs 22 * 118 kcal = 2596 kcal of energy to separate it from water, at 100% efficiency (which you will NEVER get).

Also note that the reverse operation (combining the H2 with O2 to form water again) only produces 2596 kcal of energy, at 100% efficiency (which, again, you will NEVER get).

Converting kilocalories to kilowatt hours, 2596 kcal = about 3.017 kilowatt hours.


Ok, the relative efficiency of electrolysis is such that I find the 5 kilowatt hour figure cited earlier to be believable. That means about 2 kilowatt hours are wasted due to inefficiency. There are newer methods for cracking water into hydrogen and oxygen gas that are more efficient, such as high-pressure steam cracking in nuclear plants. But, no matter how efficient you can make it, it will always take at least 3.017 kilowatt hours of energy to do it. That is the absolute BEST it can get (100% efficiency) in theory. In practice it will take more. Let’s assume that some new method that is able to be installed in an automobile takes only 4 kilowatt hours to crack the cubic meter (@STP) of hydrogen gas.

But anyway, now that you have the Hydrogen gas, how will you use it? One way is to use it as a fuel in some sort of internal combustion engine. Typical high-efficiency production internal combustion engines used in automobiles have efficiencies of about 20%. That means you must put 5 times as much energy in (as the fuel) as you get usable energy out. The highest efficiency experimental internal combustion engine suitable for automobiles has an efficiency of 42%. Let’s assume that there is a breakthrough, and this engine runs at 50% efficiency. That would mean that you get half the energy out from the engine as the energy input supplied (the fuel).
So, let’s use 4 kilowatt hours of electricity to produce our 1 cubic meter of hydrogen gas using our super efficient new process. Then let’s burn it in our uber-efficient internal combustion engine, receiving 1.5 kilowatt hours of mechanical energy to move the vehicle. Not very efficient, is it?

1.5/4= 37.5 % efficient.

What about the fuel cell, you ask? Well, the output of fuel cells is electricity. Why go to all the trouble of messing with the hydrogen. You started with electricity in the first place.

Modern, high-efficiency electric motors are quite capable of about 95% efficiency. Using the same 4 kilowatt hours you used with the hydrogen mess, using these electric motors, one would get 3.8 kilowatt hours of mechanical energy out to move the vehicle. WELL over twice as much energy output as you got with the hydrogen mess.

The ONLY time it makes sense to use hydrogen to power a vehicle is if the hydrogen is cracked out of water somewhere else, and is just pumped into a tank in the vehicle. You will NEVER just be able to pour water into a tank in your vehicle and go with no other energy inputs. The energy (electricity) source in your vehicle required to crack the water into hydrogen and oxygen gas would be MUCH better off used to directly power the vehicle using electric motors.

Some people get confused about this. They remember that in their gasoline powered automobiles, the energy required to keep the battery charged (and power all the electrical features of their automobile) is available from a relatively small alternator attached to and powered by the engine. Well, this works because one does not have to use the electricity to synthesize the gasoline out of CO2 and H2O. The engine is powered by combusting the gasoline (already ‘synthesized’ by nature and the oil company refineries, and just pumped into a holding tank in your automobile) and has plenty of mechanical energy available to keep the minor needs of the automobile for electrical power met.

This is really just fairly simple physics and chemistry. Its not even rocket science (which is, itself, fairly simple physics, as physics goes). Anyone that tries to convince you that they have some vehicle that runs on nothing but water (no other energy inputs) is just blowing smoke up your backside and trying to sell you snake oil.

Hold the bus...I didnt say there was no other input..its a testing system... There is a bank of 8 ordinary 12 voly car batteries that are charged from a solar array on the roof when the car is parked, they also have a board/socket enabling them to be plugged into the mains if there has been no sun. there is an additional reasonable sized generator fitted under the bonnet to drive the
e-units and the batteries. The car has the backseat removed to enable the rear of the car to have the combination tank systems bolted into place. the tanks have "a LARGE SURFACE AREA electrode" eg a foil of types inside them (think capacitor like devices 1.5m length and 80cm width) . The motherboard with supply electronics to crack the water is on the floor in the rear. The whole thing hinges on the way the electricity is delivered to the cells.

The car creates hydrogen as it goes, the balance between tank size, electrode surface area (large), temperature, and energy pulses defines how much gas is produced.

It is NOT efficient, it does NOT accelerate like a normal car. When you can start the car from the reserve cannister of gas and drive 250km at about 75km/h ... and put the petrol money into the bank instead of the tank... I am not confused about efficiency nor worried about ferrari like performance. I have however enjoyed the scenery.

Thanks for some good clear clarity in an otherwise "perpetual motion machine" snake-oil mess...

[...]
using these electric motors, one would get 3.8 kilowatt hours of mechanical energy out to move the vehicle. WELL over twice as much energy output as you got with the hydrogen mess.

Electric is a good way to go if you can efficiently store the stuff in some way or if you can efficiently transmit the stuff to where it is needed when needed.

The ONLY time it makes sense to use hydrogen to power a vehicle is if the hydrogen is cracked out of water somewhere else, and is just pumped into a tank in the vehicle. You will NEVER just be able to pour water into a tank in your vehicle and go with no other energy inputs. The energy (electricity) source in your vehicle required to crack the water into hydrogen and oxygen gas would be MUCH better off used to directly power the vehicle using electric motors.

I agree.

One plausible source is to split oil into hydrogen + CO2 at source and pump the CO2 back down into the oil reservoir to trap the CO2 there for a few more millenia.

The question for that is the effectiveness and expense...


Perhaps more effective would be to avoid the daily commute in the first place, or 'somehow' put in place more effective and efficient public transport.

An alternative for some jobs is to let the electrons suffer the tediousness of commuting and take advantage of 'remote working'.


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Hold the bus...I didnt say there was no other input..its a testing system... There is a bank of 8 ordinary 12 voly car batteries that are charged from a solar array on the roof when the car is parked, they also have a board/socket enabling them to be plugged into the mains if there has been no sun. there is an additional reasonable sized generator fitted under the bonnet to drive the
e-units and the batteries. The car has the backseat removed to enable the rear of the car to have the combination tank systems bolted into place. the tanks have "a LARGE SURFACE AREA electrode" eg a foil of types inside them (think capacitor like devices 1.5m length and 80cm width) . The motherboard with supply electronics to crack the water is on the floor in the rear. The whole thing hinges on the way the electricity is delivered to the cells.

The car creates hydrogen as it goes, the balance between tank size, electrode surface area (large), temperature, and energy pulses defines how much gas is produced.

It is NOT efficient, it does NOT accelerate like a normal car. When you can start the car from the reserve cannister of gas and drive 250km at about 75km/h ... and put the petrol money into the bank instead of the tank... I am not confused about efficiency nor worried about ferrari like performance. I have however enjoyed the scenery.

Ok, but in this case, why bother with the hydrogen at all? I know you said you are not overly concerned with the efficiency, but still... It would be a LOT more efficient to directly use electric motors rather than cracking water into hydrogen and then using a 'hydrogen motor'. Using both/either solar panels or 'plugging into the electric mains' to recharge the batteries is a good thing and makes sense. Wasting energy by electrically cracking water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, then wasting even more energy by burning the hydrogen/oxygen in a 'hydrogen motor' does not make sense.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not against research into alternative means of fueling and powering automobiles. However, efficiency is important, and I have yet to see a method that beats the efficiency of an all-electric car.

One plausible source is to split oil into hydrogen + CO2 at source and pump the CO2 back down into the oil reservoir to trap the CO2 there for a few more millenia.

The problem with this is hydrogen molecules (H2) are so dang light. Even liquid hydrogen at cryogenic temperatures isn't very dense. It takes a much larger tank and/or pipeline to store and transport the stuff than you might think. For instance, the Space Shuttle's external fuel tank is mostly hydrogen tanks. The Oxygen tanks occupy only a relatively tiny portion of its size.

Another problem with doing this is that hydrogen molecules are so dang small. They tend to leak out of most containers at surprisingly fast rates. Containers for hydrogen gas have to be specially designed and made, and this is NOT cheap. And even THESE containers still have some leakage.

So, we are talking large containers that are specially designed and made to store and transport hydrogen gas. Frankly, it would probably be more cost effective to go ahead and move the oil from the well by conventional means to very NEAR where the hydrogen would be used. Then, AFTER your process to convert the hydrocarbons in the oil and oxygen from the air into H2 and CO2 gas, ship the CO2 back to the oil well and pump it down.

The question for that is the effectiveness and expense...


Perhaps more effective would be to avoid the daily commute in the first place, or 'somehow' put in place more effective and efficient public transport.

An alternative for some jobs is to let the electrons suffer the tediousness of commuting and take advantage of 'remote working'.


Regards,
Martin

I wholeheartedly agree. We despirately need to alter our living arrangements so that we work within walking distance of where we live, whereever possible. Effective and efficient public transportation and 'telecommuting' are good ideas as well.

Physically commuting to and from work sucks.

However, efficiency is important,

I have to agree with Kong on this point.

Something to keep in mind is that absolutely NO fuel source is going to be free. It is always going to cost us ( te regular drivers ) money to put the fuel into the vehicle.

I ( speaking only for myself ) would not be very happy to drive an alternative fuel vehicle if the fuel efficiency isn't worth a spit.

Again....that particular point comes down to simple economics.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Ok, but in this case, why bother with the hydrogen at all? I know you said you are not overly concerned with the efficiency, but still... It would be a LOT more efficient to directly use electric motors rather than cracking water into hydrogen and then using a 'hydrogen motor'. Using both/either solar panels or 'plugging into the electric mains' to recharge the batteries is a good thing and makes sense. Wasting energy by electrically cracking water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, then wasting even more energy by burning the hydrogen/oxygen in a 'hydrogen motor' does not make sense.

Now don't get me wrong. I am not against research into alternative means of fueling and powering automobiles. However, efficiency is important, and I have yet to see a method that beats the efficiency of an all-electric car.

I looked into the electric motor concept, they are expensive (for this project) and a normal car requires major engineering work to cut/install them. Ideally they would be located on each wheel for maximum traction control. I agree the test car is rather stone age but its value as a basic proof of concept/theory machine has been beneficial, and it has cost a lot less to fitout with the cracking units than electric motors and body redesign. It has a potential for usage with electric vehicles as a small easily builtin additional power source for when the electric ehicle suddenly finds itself beyond the range of the next charge station. The additional "gas" motor may be used to get the vehicle "home" by cracking water in a small emergency cylindar held in the trunk.

One of the others who work here (there are a few of us that use this logon) is working on a mechanical redesign for generators and has a rather interesting device. It may yet be incorporated into another test unit and explore the all electric vehicle concept. There are some interesting things happening in the permanent magnet augmented device field.

Oh, Dog, I can’t take it anymore!

Here is why water as a reasonable fuel source won’t work.

Sorry for being abrupt but if ya don’t like it find another universe to live in, cause it won't work in this one!

EDIT: Unless, of course, you have a wee fusion reactor in your trunk.

You are absolutely correct Kenzie.

As MajorKong points out, there must be a source of energy demonstrated to the closed system (in the sense of the car and it's tank of water) beyond the water and system to crack the water to it's components (H and O2).

The energy neeeded to propel a vehicle must be equal energy in from the fuel and the the external source (whatever that is) to allow the electrolysis and recovered work energy to be equal and move the vehicle.

Without showing where the additional energy comes from you have a perpetial motion machine, and these do not exist!

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

Laws of Thermodynamics in plain English:

1. You can't win.

2. You can't break even.

3. You can't quit the game.

:)

Any more thought?

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

A member of my site is assembling a team of fellow PHDs to finalize a unit that will install on an existing gas vehicle which will utilize hydrogen. He's a bit secretive at this point but you can talk to him if you'd like.

Just join my site and go to the ALT Energy Forums. I'm sure you'll find him there.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Equinox - It Runs on Water (Free Energy - 1995)
Equinox
50 min 18 sec - Apr 17, 2006

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2464139837181538044

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Equinox - It Runs on Water (Free Energy - 1995)
Equinox
50 min 18 sec - Apr 17, 2006

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2464139837181538044

Yeah. Okay. With all do respect to Mr. Clarke (and I am a fan of his earlier fiction) let's talk again in 20 or 30 years and see where we are then.

Again: Ya don't ever get something for nothing. (As much as we all wish it was otherwise.) These are the very basic rules of this universe.

In the opening stages Arthur C. Clarke explained how there were four stages in the way scientists react to the development of anything of a revolutionary nature. "Free energy" was now working its way through these four stages of reaction, which were:

a: "It's nonsense," b: "It is not important," c: "I always said it was a good idea," and d: "I thought of it first."

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

In the opening stages Arthur C. Clarke explained how there were four stages in the way scientists react to the development of anything of a revolutionary nature. "Free energy" was now working its way through these four stages of reaction, which were:

a: "It's nonsense," b: "It is not important," c: "I always said it was a good idea," and d: "I thought of it first."

Okay. Like I said, let’s have this conversation again in 20 or 30 years… In fact, on August 3, 2037 I’ll be 59. With a little luck, I’ll still be breathing. So, do we have a date?
If the world has gotten past 'a' you can have your way with a 59 year old lady.

In the meantime, google 'entropy'

;)